Introduction of same-sex marriage laws has varied by jurisdiction, being variously accomplished through legislative change to marriage laws, a court ruling based on constitutional guarantees of equality, or by direct popular vote (via ballot initiative or referendum). The recognition of same-sex marriage is a political and social issue, and also a religious issue in many countries, and debates continue to arise over whether people in same-sex relationships should be allowed marriage or some similar status (a civil union).[7][8][9]

Same-sex marriage can provide those in same-sex relationships who pay their taxes with government services and make financial demands on them comparable to those afforded to and required of those in opposite-sex marriages. Same-sex marriage also gives them legal protections such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights.[10]Various faith communities around the world support allowing those of the same sex to marry, while many major religions oppose same-sex marriage. Opponents of same-sex marriages have argued that recognition of same-sex marriages would erode religious freedoms, undermine a right of children to be raised by their biological mother and father or erode the institution of marriage itself.[citation needed]

Some analysts state that financial, psychological and physical well-being are enhanced by marriage, and that children of same-sex parents or carers benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union supported by society's institutions.[11][12][13][14][15][16] Court documents filed by American scientific associations also state that singling out gay men and women as ineligible for marriage both stigmatizes and invites public discrimination against them.[17]

The American Anthropological Association asserts that social science research does not support the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution.[18]

Opponents of the legalization of same-sex marriage sometimes characterize it as redefining marriage or redefined marriage, especially in the United States,[26][27] the term homosexual marriage is generally used by organisations opposed to same-sex marriage such as the Family Research Council in the United States;[28] that term is rarely used in the mainstream press.[29]

Associated Press style recommends the usages marriage for gays and lesbians or in space-limited headlines gay marriage with no hyphen and no scare quotes. The Associated Press warns that the construct gay marriage can imply that marriages of same-sex couples are somehow legally different from those of mixed-sex couples.[30][31]

Anthropologists have struggled to determine a definition of marriage that absorbs commonalities of the social construct across cultures around the world.[32][33] Many proposed definitions have been criticized for failing to recognize the existence of same-sex marriage in some cultures, including in more than 30 African cultures, such as the Kikuyu and Nuer.[33][34][35]

With several countries revising their marriage laws to recognize same-sex couples in the 21st century, all major English dictionaries have revised their definition of the word marriage to either drop gender specifications or supplement them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or explicit recognition of same-sex unions.[36][37] The Oxford English Dictionary has recognized same-sex marriage since 2000.[38]

Some publications that oppose same-sex marriage, such as WorldNetDaily and Baptist Press, have an editorial style policy of placing the word marriage in scare quotes ("marriage") when it is used in reference to same-sex couples.[citation needed] In the United States, the mainstream press has generally abandoned this practice.[29] Cliff Kincaid of the conservative Accuracy in Media argued for use of quotation marks on the grounds that marriage was a legal status denied same-sex couples by most U.S. state governments.[42] Same-sex marriage supporters argue that the use of scare quotes is an editorialization that implies illegitimacy.[43]

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

In 2010, a Columbia UniversityMailman School of Public Health study examining the effects of institutional discrimination on the psychiatric health of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) individuals found an increase in psychiatric disorders, including a more than doubling of anxiety disorders, among the LGB population living in states that instituted bans on same-sex marriage. According to the author, the study highlighted the importance of abolishing institutional forms of discrimination, including those leading to disparities in the mental health and well-being of LGB individuals. Institutional discrimination is characterized by societal-level conditions that limit the opportunities and access to resources by socially disadvantaged groups.[48][49]

Gay activist Jonathan Rauch has argued that marriage is good for all men, whether homosexual or heterosexual, because engaging in its social roles reduces men's aggression and promiscuity,[50][51] the data of current psychological and other social science studies on same-sex marriage in comparison to mixed-sex marriage indicate that same-sex and mixed-sex relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to their ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. Same-sex parents and carers and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships.[52][53]

The American Psychological Association stated in 2004: "...Denial of access to marriage to same-sex couples may especially harm people who also experience discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, disability, gender and gender identity, religion, socioeconomic status and so on." It has also averred that same-sex couples who may only enter into a civil union, as opposed to a marriage, "are denied equal access to all the benefits, rights, and privileges provided by federal law to those of married couples," which has adverse effects on the well-being of same-sex partners.[11]

In 2009, a pair of economists at Emory University tied the passage of state bans on same-sex marriage in the US to an increase in the rates of HIV infection,[54][55] the study linked the passage of a same-sex marriage ban in a state to an increase in the annual HIV rate within that state of roughly 4 cases per 100,000 population.[56]

Many psychologist organizations have concluded that children stand to benefit from the well-being that results when their parents' relationship is recognized and supported by society's institutions, e.g. civil marriage. For example, the Canadian Psychological Association stated in 2006 that "parents' financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union."[14] The CPA stated in 2003 the stressors encountered by gay and lesbian parents and their children are more likely the result of the way society treats them than because of any deficiencies in fitness to parent.[14]

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment, these data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents, the rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.

Numerous polls and studies on the issue have been conducted, including those that were completed throughout the first decade of the 21st century. A consistent trend of increasing support for same-sex marriage has been revealed across the world. Much of the research that was conducted in developed countries in the first decade of the 21st century shows a majority of people in support of same-sex marriage. Support for legal same-sex marriage has increased across every age group, political ideology, religion, gender, race and region of various developed countries in the world.[57][58][59][60][61]

Recent polling in the United States has shown a further increase in public support for same-sex marriage. When adults were asked in 2005 if they thought "marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages", 28 percent replied in the affirmative, while 68 percent replied in the negative (the remaining 4 percent stated that they were unsure). When adults were asked in March 2013 if they supported or opposed same-sex marriage, 50 percent said they supported same-sex marriage, while 41 percent were opposed, and the remaining 9 percent stated that they were unsure.[62] Various detailed polls and studies on same-sex marriage that were conducted in several countries show that support for same-sex marriage generally increases with higher levels of education and decreases with age.[63][64][65][66][67]

Indicates the country has legalized same-sex marriage nationwide

Indicates that same-sex marriage is legal in certain parts of the country

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire according to controversial[103] historian John Boswell.[104] These were usually reported in a critical or satirical manner.[105]

The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other males on different occasions, the first was with one of Nero's own freedmen, Pythagoras, with whom Nero took the role of the bride.[110] Later, as a groom, Nero married Sporus, a young boy, to replace the adolescent female concubine he had killed[111][112] and married him in a very public ceremony with all the solemnities of matrimony, after which Sporus was forced to pretend to be the female concubine that Nero had killed and act as though they were really married.[111] A friend gave the "bride" away as required by law, the marriage was celebrated in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies.[113]

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[114] Furthermore, according to Susan Treggiari, "matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater, the idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."[115] Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, though the frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period are obscure.[116]

In the late 16th century, French essayist and philosopher Michel de Montaigne wrote of two same-sex marriages, the first involving two women in eastern France, the second involving two men in Rome. A ceremony was held for the male couple at the Porta Latina, though was later interrupted by police who arrested 11 people present at the ceremony.[119][120]

Writing in Harvard Magazine in 2013, legal historian Michael Klarman wrote that while there was a growth of gay rights activism in the 1970s United States, "Marriage equality was not then a priority." He argued that many gay people were not initially interested in marriage, deeming it to be a traditionalist institution, and that the search for legal recognition of same-sex relationships began in the late 1980s.[121] Others, such as Faramerz Dabhoiwala writing for The Guardian, say that the modern movement began in the 1990s.[122]

British judge Sir Nicolas Bratza, then head of the European Court of Human Rights, delivered a speech in 2012 that signaled the court was ready to declare same-sex marriage a "human right", as soon as enough countries fell into line.[128][129][130]

Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that: "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right",[131] not limiting marriage to those in a heterosexual relationship. However, the ECHR stated in Schalk and Kopf v Austria that this provision was intended to limit marriage to heterosexual relationships, as it used the term "men and women" instead of "everyone".[126]

Rings indicate areas where local judges have granted or denied marriages or imposed the death penalty in a jurisdiction where that is not otherwise the law or areas with a case-by-case application.1Some jurisdictions in this category may currently have other types of partnerships.2No arrests in the past three years or moratorium on law.

The status of same-sex marriage is a complicated matter in a number of other nations; in Mexico marriages are recognized by all sub-national jurisdictions and by the federal government.[135] On 3 June 2015, Mexico's Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation released a "jurisprudential thesis" declaring the current purpose of marriage, which is procreation, as unconstitutional and discriminatory towards same-sex relationships. Courts nationwide must now authorize marriages between people of the same-sex through injunctions, a process slower and more expensive than opposite-sex marriage.[136]Israel does not recognize same-sex marriages performed in its territory, but same-sex marriages performed in foreign jurisdictions are recorded strictly "for statistical purposes", thereby avoiding official recognition of same-sex marriages by the state.[137]

On 15 July 2010, the Argentine Senate approved a bill extending marriage rights to same-sex couples, it was supported by the Government of PresidentCristina Fernández de Kirchner and opposed by the Catholic Church.[138] Polls showed that nearly 70% of Argentines supported giving gay people the same marital rights as heterosexuals,[139] the law came into effect on 22 July 2010 upon promulgation by the Argentine President.[140]

Mayor of Liège, Willy Demeyer, officiating at the wedding of a gay couple

Belgium became the second country in the world to legally recognize same-sex marriages when a bill passed by the Belgian Federal Parliament took effect on 1 June 2003.[141] Originally, Belgium allowed the marriages of foreign same-sex couples only if their country of origin also allowed these unions, however legislation enacted in October 2004 permits any couple to marry if at least one of the spouses has lived in the country for a minimum of three months. A 2006 statute legalized adoption by same-sex spouses.[142]

Brazil's Supreme Court ruled in May 2011 that same-sex couples are legally entitled to legal recognition of cohabitation (known as união estável, one of the two possible family entities in Brazilian legislation, it includes all family and married couple rights in Brazil – besides automatic opt-in for one of four systems of property share and automatic right to inheritance –, and was available for all same-sex couples since the same date), turning same-sex marriage legally possible as a consequence, and just stopping short of equalization of same-sex marriage (potentially confusing, a civil marriage or casamento civil is often rendered as união civil in legal Brazilian Portuguese; a same-sex marriage is a casamento civil homoafetivo or an união civil homoafetiva).[143]

Between mid-2011 and May 2013, same-sex couples had their cohabitation issues converted into marriage in several Brazil states with the approval of a state judge. All legal Brazilian marriages were always recognized all over Brazil.[144]

In November 2012, the Court of Bahia equalized marriage in the state of Bahia.[145][146]

In December 2012, the state of São Paulo likewise had same-sex marriage allowed in demand by court order.[147] Same-sex marriages also became equalized in relation to opposite-sex ones between January 2012 and April 2013 by court order in Alagoas, Ceará, Espírito Santo, the Federal District, Mato Grosso do Sul, Paraíba, Paraná, Piauí, Rondônia, Santa Catarina and Sergipe, and in Santa Rita do Sapucaí, a municipality in Minas Gerais; in Rio de Janeiro, the State Court facilitated its realization by district judges in agreement with the equalization (instead of ordering notaries to accept same-sex marriages in demand as all others).[citation needed]

On 14 May 2013, the Justice's National Council of Brazil issued a ruling requiring all civil registers of the country to perform same-sex marriages by a 14–1 vote, thus legalizing same-sex marriage in the entire country.[148][149][150] The resolution came into effect on 16 May 2013.[151][152]

In March 2013, polls suggested that 47% of Brazilians supported marriage equalization and 57% supported adoption equalization for same-sex couples.[153]

Polls in June 2013 also supported the conclusion that the division of opinion between acceptance and rejection of same-sex marriage is in about equal halves. When the distinction between same-sex unions that are not termed marriages in relation to same-sex marriage is made, the difference in the numbers of approval and disapproval is still insignificant, below 1%; the most frequent reason for disapproval is a supposed 'unnaturalness' of same-sex relationships, followed by religious beliefs.[154][155]

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Colombia since April 2016, the country's Constitutional Court ruled, on 28 April 2016 that same-sex couples are allowed to enter into civil marriages in the country and that judges and notaries are barred from refusing to perform same-sex weddings.[156][157][158] On 7 April 2016, the Court ruled that marriage doesn't only apply to opposite-sex couples.[159][160][161][162] Almost all advances in relationship recognition rights for same-sex couples has come from sweeping rulings of the Court. A series of rulings by the court that started in February 2007 meant that same-sex couples could apply for all the rights that heterosexual couples have in de facto unions (uniones de hecho).[163][164]

On 26 July 2011, the Constitutional Court of Colombia ordered the Congress to pass the legislation giving same-sex couples similar rights to marriage by 20 June 2013. If such a law were not passed by then, same-sex couples would be granted these rights automatically.[165][166]

In October 2012, Senator Armando Benedetti introduced a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, it initially only allowed for civil unions, but he amended the text.[167] The Senate's First Committee approved the bill on 4 December 2012,[168][169] on 24 April 2013, the bill was defeated in the full Senate on a 51–17 vote.[170]

On 24 July 2013, a civil court judge in Bogotá declared a male same-sex couple legally married, after a ruling on 11 July 2013 accepting the petition, this was the first same-sex couple married in Colombia.[171][172]

In September 2013, two civil court judges married two same-sex couples,[173] the first marriage was challenged by a conservative group, and it was initially annulled. Nevertheless, in October a High Court (Tribunal Supremo de Bogotá) maintained the validity of that marriage.[174][175]

On 7 June 2012, the Folketing (Danish Parliament) approved new laws regarding same-sex civil and religious marriage, these laws permit same-sex couples to get married in the Church of Denmark. The bills received royal assent on 12 June and took effect on 15 June 2012.[176] Denmark was previously the first country in the world to legally recognize same-sex couples through registered partnerships in 1989.[177][178]

On 26 May 2015, Greenland, one of Denmark's two other constituent countries in the Realm of Denmark, unanimously passed a law legalising same-sex marriage,[179][180] the first same-sex couple to marry in Greenland married on 1 April 2016, the day the law went into effect.[181]

On 17 November 2015, in the Faroe Islands (the realm's other constituent country), a same-sex marriage bill entered Parliament (Løgting), the bill passed its second reading on 26 April and was approved at its third reading on 29 April 2016 by 19 votes to 14.[182] The law required ratification in the Danish Parliament, which provided it on 25 April 2017,[183] the Faroese law allows civil marriages for same-sex couples and exempts the Church of the Faroe Islands from being required to officiate same-sex weddings. The law took effect on 1 July 2017.[184]

Registered partnerships have been legal in Finland since in 2002.[185] In 2010, Minister of JusticeTuija Brax said her Ministry was preparing to amend the Marriage Act to allow same-sex marriage by 2012,[186] on 27 February 2013, the bill was rejected by the Legal Affairs Committee of the Finnish Parliament on a vote of 9–8. A citizens' initiative was launched to put the issue before the Parliament of Finland,[187] the initiative gathered the required 50,000 signatures of Finnish citizens in one day and exceeded 107,000 signatures by the time the media reported the figures.[188] The campaign collected 166,000 signatures and the initiative was presented to the Parliament in December 2013,[189] the initiative went to introductory debate on 20 February 2014 and was sent again to the Legal Affairs Committee.[190][191] On 25 June, the bill was rejected by the Legal Affairs Committee on a vote of 10–6 and the third time on 20 November 2014, by 9–8,[192] it faced the first vote in full session on 28 November 2014,[193] which passed the bill 105–92. The bill passed the second and final vote by 101–90 on 12 December 2014,[194] and was signed by the President on 20 February 2015.

The law took effect on 1 March 2017,[195] it was the first time a citizens' initiative has been approved by the Finnish Parliament.[185]

Since November 1999, France has a civil union law that is open to same-sex couples. Following the election of François Hollande as President of France in May 2012 and the subsequent legislative election in which the Socialist party took a majority of seats in the French National Assembly, the new Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault stated that a same-sex marriage bill had been drafted and would be passed.[196]

The government introduced a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, Bill 344, in the National Assembly on 17 November 2012. Article 1 of the bill defining marriage as an agreement between two people was passed on 2 February 2013 in its first reading by a 249–97 vote, on 12 February 2013, the National Assembly approved the entire bill in a 329–229 vote.[197]

On 12 April 2013, the upper house of the French Parliament voted to legalise same-sex marriage,[198] on 23 April 2013, the law was approved by the National Assembly in a 331–225 vote.[199]Law No.2013-404 grants same-sex couples living in France, including foreigners provided at least one of the partners has their domicile or residence in France, the legal right to get married. The law also allows the recognition in France of same-sex couples' marriages that occurred abroad before the bill's enactment.[200]

Following the announcement of the French Parliament's vote results, those in opposition to the legalisation of same-sex marriage in France participated in public protests; in both Paris and Lyon, violence erupted as protesters clashed with police; the issue has mobilised right-wing forces in the country, including neo-Nazis.[201]

The main right-wing opposition party UMP challenged the law in the Constitutional Council, which had one month to rule on whether the law conformed to the Constitution, the Constitutional Council had previously ruled that the issue of same-sex marriage was one for the Parliament to decide and there was only little hope for UMP to overturn the Parliament's vote.[202]

On 17 May 2013, the Constitutional Council declared the bill legal in its entire redaction. President Hollande signed it into law on 18 May 2013.[203]

Since 1 August 2001, Germany has registered partnerships (Eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft) for same-sex couples, providing most but not all rights of marriage. In 2004, this act was amended to include adoption rights (stepchild adoption only) and to reform previously cumbersome dissolution procedures with regard to division of property and alimony. Attempts to give equal rights to registered partners or to legalize same-sex marriage have generally been blocked by the CDU/CSU, the main party in government since 2005.

A vast majority of Germans support the introduction of same-sex marriage.[204]

During the campaigns for the German federal election of 2017, SPD, Greens, The Left and FDP supported the introduction of same-sex marriage, making it a requirement for coalitions after the election. In late June 2017, Chancellor Merkel (CDU) abruptly altered her views on same-sex marriage, labeling it as a "question of conscience" (conscience vote) instead of insisting on party and coalition discipline which had contributed to blocking previous attempts to legalise same-sex marriage in the country.[205] Following Merkel's shift, the SPD, Greens and Left parties immediately brought on a vote on legislation allowing same-sex marriage and adoption in the Bundestag.

The legislation, which previously passed the Bundesrat in September 2015,[206] passed the Bundestag by 393 votes to 226 on 30 June 2017,[207] as expected, the Bundesrat raised no objection (Einspruch) in a vote held on 7 July 2017, after which the President signed it into law.[208] The law will come into effect 1 October 2017.

Same-sex marriage was introduced in Iceland through legislation establishing a gender-neutral definition of marriage introduced by the coalition government of the Social Democratic Alliance and Left-Green Movement, the legislation was passed unanimously by the Icelandic Althing on 11 June 2010, and took effect on 27 June 2010, replacing an earlier system of registered partnerships for same-sex couples.[209][210] Prime Minister Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir and her partner were among the first married same-sex couples in the country.[211]

Ireland held a referendum on 22 May 2015, the referendum proposed to add to the Irish Constitution: "marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex". The proposal approved; with 62% of voters supporting same-sex marriage. On 29 August 2015, the Irish President, Michael D. Higgins, signed the result of the May referendum into law,[212] which made Ireland the first country in the world to approve same-sex marriage at a nationwide referendum.[213] Same-sex marriage became formally legally recognised in Ireland on 16 November 2015.[214] Prior to this, the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 allowed same sex couples to enter civil partnerships. The Act came into force on 1 January 2011 and gave same-sex couples rights and responsibilities similar to, but not equal to, those of civil marriage.[215]

The Parliament approved a bill to legalise same-sex marriage on 18 June 2014,[216] the law was published in the official gazette on 17 July and took effect on 1 January 2015.[217][218][219] On 15 May 2015, Luxembourg became the first country in the EU that has a prime minister who is in a same sex marriage, and the second one in Europe. Prime minister Xavier Bettel married Gauthier Destenay, with whom he had been in a civil partnership since 2010.

Malta has recognized same-sex unions since April 2014, following the enactment of the Civil Unions Bill, first introduced in September 2013, it established civil unions with same rights, responsibilities, and obligations as marriage, including the right of joint adoption and recognition of foreign same sex marriage.[220]Malta's parliament gave final approval to the legislation on 14 April 2014 by a vote of 37 in favour and 30 abstentions. President Marie Louise Coleiro Preca signed it into law on 16 April, the first foreign same sex marriage was registered on 29 April 2014 and the first civil union was performed on 14 June 2014.[220]

On 21 February 2017, the Minister for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties Helena Dalli said that she is preparing a bill to legalise same-sex marriage,[221] the Bill was presented to parliament on 5 July 2017, with no alteration.[222] The last reading was discussed in parliament, followed by a bill, on 12 July 2017, it was signed into law and published in the Government Gazette on 1 August 2017.[223] Malta is the 14th country in Europe to have granted same-sex marriage.[224][225]

On 28 November 2011, the first two same-sex marriages occurred in Quintana Roo after it was discovered that Quintana Roo's Civil Code did not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage,[228] but these marriages were later annulled by the Governor of Quintana Roo in April 2012.[229] In May 2012, the Secretary of State of Quintana Roo reversed the annulments and allowed for future same-sex marriages to be performed in the state.[230]

On 11 February 2014, the Congress of Coahuila approved adoptions by same-sex couples and a bill legalizing same-sex marriages passed on 1 September 2014 making Coahuila the second state to reform its Civil Code to allow for legal same-sex marriages,[231] it took effect on 17 September, and the first couple married on 20 September.[232]

On 12 June 2015, the Governor of Chihuahua announced that his administration would no longer oppose same-sex marriages within the state, the order was effective immediately, thus making Chihuahua the third state to legalize such unions.[233][234]

On 3 June 2015, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation released a "jurisprudential thesis" which deems the state-laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman unconstitutional. The ruling standardized court procedures across Mexico to authorize same-sex marriages. However, the process is still lengthy and more expensive than that for an opposite-sex marriage, as[136] the ruling did not invalidate any state laws, meaning gay couples will be denied the right to wed and will have to turn to the courts for individual injunctions. However, given the nature of the ruling, judges and courts throughout Mexico must approve any application for a same-sex marriage,[235] the official release of the thesis was on 19 June 2015, which took effect on 22 June 2015.[236]

On 25 June 2015, following the Supreme Court's ruling striking down district same-sex marriage bans, the Civil Registry of Guerrero announced that they had planned a collective same-sex marriage ceremony for 10 July 2015 and indicated that there would have to be a change to the law to allow gender-neutral marriage, passed through the state Legislature before the official commencement,[237] the registry announced more details of their plan, advising that only select registration offices in the state would be able to participate in the collective marriage event.[238]

The state Governor instructed civil agencies to approve same-sex marriage licenses, on 10 July 2015, 20 same-sex couples were married by Governor Rogelio Ortega in Acapulco.[239] On 13 January 2016, the head of the Civil Registry of Acapulco announced that all marriages that took place on 10 July 2015 by the Governor and his wife were void and not legal as same-sex marriage is not legal in Guerrero, unless couples are granted amparo beforehand,[240] on 13 February 2016, however, the head of Guerrero's State Civil Registry department announced that same-sex couples could marry in any of the jurisdictions that want to marry the couples and criticised Acapulco's Civil Registry and other civil registries throughout the state for not allowing these kinds of weddings.[241]

On 17 December 2015, the Congress of Nayarit approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage;[242] in January 2016, the Mexican Supreme Court declared Jalisco's Civil Code unconstitutional for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.[243] On 10 May 2016, the Congress of Campeche passed a same-sex marriage bill,[244] on 18 May 2016, both Michoacán and Morelos passed bills allowing for same-sex marriage to be legal.[245][246] On 25 May 2016, a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Colima was approved by the state Congress.[247]

On 17 May 2016, the President of Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto, signed an initiative to change the country's Constitution, which would legalize same-sex marriage throughout Mexico,[248] on 9 November 2016, the Committee on Constitutional Issues of the Chamber of Deputies rejected the initiative 19 votes to 8.[249]

The Netherlands was the first country to extend marriage laws to include same-sex couples, following the recommendation of a special commission appointed to investigate the issue in 1995. A same-sex marriage bill passed the House of Representatives and the Senate in 2000, taking effect on 1 April 2001.[250]

On 14 May 2012, Labour Party MP Louisa Wall stated that she would introduce a private member's bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, allowing same-sex couples to marry.[252] The bill was submitted to the members' bill ballot on 30 May 2012,[253] it was drawn from the ballot and passed the first and second readings on 29 August 2012 and 13 March 2013, respectively.[254][255] The final reading passed on 17 April 2013 by 77 votes to 44,[256][257] the bill received royal assent from the Governor-General on 19 April and took effect on 19 August 2013.[258][259]

New Zealand marriage law only applies to New Zealand proper and the Ross Dependency in Antarctica. Other New Zealand territories, including Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau, have their own marriage law and do not perform nor recognise same-sex marriage.[citation needed]

Same-sex marriage became legal in Norway on 1 January 2009 when a gender-neutral marriage bill was enacted after being passed by the Norwegian Parliament in June 2008.[260][261] Norway became the first Scandinavian country and the sixth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. Gender-neutral marriage replaced Norway's previous system of registered partnerships for same-sex couples. Couples in registered partnerships are able to retain that status or convert their registered partnership to a marriage. No new registered partnerships may be created.[citation needed]

Portugal created de facto unions (união de facto in legal European Portuguese) similar to common-law marriage for cohabiting opposite-sex partners in 1999, and extended these unions to same-sex couples in 2001. However, the 2001 extension did not allow for same-sex adoption, either jointly or of stepchildren.[262]

On 11 February 2010, Parliament approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, the Portuguese President promulgated the law on 8 April 2010 and the law was effective on 5 June 2010, making Portugal the eighth country to legalize nationwide same-sex marriage; however, adoption was still denied for same-sex couples.[263]

On 17 May 2013, the Portuguese Parliament approved a bill to recognise some adoption rights for same-sex couples in the first reading[265][266][267]

A bill granting adoption rights to same-sex parents and carers, as well as in-vitro fertilisation for lesbian relationships, was introduced in Parliament by then opposition Socialist and Left Block parties on 16 January 2015,[268] on 22 January, Parliament rejected the proposals.[269]

In December 2015, the Portuguese Parliament approved a bill to recognise adoptions rights for same-sex couples.[270][271][272] It came into effect in March 2016.

The Civil Union Act was passed by the National Assembly on 14 November 2006, by a vote of 230 to 41, it became law on 30 November 2006. South Africa is the fifth country, the first in Africa, and the second outside Europe, to legalize same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage in Sweden has been legal since 1 May 2009, following the adoption of a new, gender-neutral law on marriage by the Swedish Parliament on 1 April 2009, making Sweden the seventh country in the world to open marriage to same-sex couples nationwide. Marriage replaced Sweden's registered partnerships for same-sex couples. Existing registered partnerships between same-sex couples remained in force with an option to convert them into marriages.[279][280]

Since 2005, same-sex couples have been allowed to enter into civil partnerships, a separate union providing the legal consequences of marriage; in 2006, the High Court rejected a legal bid by a British lesbian couple who had married in Canada to have their union recognised as a marriage in the UK rather than a civil partnership. In September 2011, the Coalition Government announced its intention to introduce same-sex civil marriage in England and Wales by the May 2015 general election.[281] However, unlike the Scottish Government's consultation, the UK Government's consultation for England and Wales did not include provision for religious ceremonies; in May 2012, three religious groups (Quakers, Liberal Judaism and Unitarians) sent a letter to David Cameron, asking that they be allowed to solemnise same-sex weddings.[282]

In June 2012, the UK Government completed the consultation to allow civil marriage for same-sex couples in England and Wales;[283] in its response to the consultation, the Government said that it also intended "...to enable those religious organisations that wish to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies to do so, on a permissive basis only."[284] In December 2012, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, announced that, whilst he favoured allowing same-sex marriage within a religious context, provision would be made guaranteeing no religious institution would be required to perform such ceremonies,[285] on 5 February 2013, the House of Commons debated the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, approving it in a 400–175 vote at the second reading.[286] The third reading took place on 21 May 2013, and was approved by 366 votes to 161.[287]

On 4 June 2013, the bill received its second reading in the House of Lords, after a blocking amendment was defeated by 390 votes to 148,[288] on 15 July 2013, the bill was given a third reading by the House of Lords, meaning that it had been passed, and so it was then returned to Commons for the consideration of the Lords' amendments. On 16 July 2013, the Commons accepted all of the Lords' amendments,[289] on 17 July 2013, the bill received royal assent becoming the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which came into force on 13 March 2014.[289] The first same-sex marriages took place on 29 March 2014.[290]

The Scottish Government conducted a three-month-long consultation which ended on 9 December 2011 and the analysis was published in July 2012.[291] Unlike the consultation held in England and Wales, Scotland considered both civil and religious same-sex marriage. Whilst the Scottish Government is in favour of same-sex marriage, it stated that no religious body would be forced to hold such ceremonies once legislation is enacted,[292] the Scottish consultation received more than 77,000 responses, and on 27 June 2013 the Government published the bill.[293] In order to preserve the freedom of both religious groups and individual clergy, the Scottish Government believed it necessary for changes to be made to the Equality Act 2010 and communicated with the UK Government on this matter; thus, the first same-sex marriages in Scotland did not occur until this had taken place.[294] Although the Scottish bill concerning same-sex marriage had been published, the 'Australian' reported that LGBT rights campaigners, celebrating outside the UK Parliament on 15 July 2013 for the clearance of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in the House of Lords, declared that they would continue the campaign to extend same-sex marriage rights to both Scotland and Northern Ireland,[295] rather than solely Northern Ireland, where there are no plans to introduce such legislation. On 4 February 2014, the Scottish Parliament overwhelmingly passed legislation legalising same-sex marriage,[296] the bill received royal assent as the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 on 12 March 2014.[297][298] The law took effect on 16 December 2014, with the first same-sex weddings occurring for those converting their civil partnerships into marriage.[299][300] Malcolm Brown and Joe Schofield from Tullibody were scheduled to be the first to be declared husband and husband just after midnight on 31 December, following a Humanist ceremony, but they were superseded by couples marrying on 16 December. Nonetheless, Brown and Schofield were married on Hogmanay.[301]

The Northern Ireland Executive has stated that it does not intend to introduce legislation allowing for same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland. Same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions are treated as civil partnerships.[citation needed]

Before the legalization of same-sex marriage in any U.S. jurisdiction, the U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, attempting to define marriage for the first time solely as a union between a man and a woman for all federal purposes, and allowing states to refuse to recognize such marriages created in other states.[307]

On 26 June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Windsor Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional for allowing the federal government of the United States to deny federal recognition of same-sex marriage licenses, if it is recognized or performed in a state that allows same-sex marriage.[319] Two years later on the same day, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that state level bans on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional as well, legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the entire U.S. proper and all incorporated territories.[320]

On 6 October 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of five writ petitions from decisions of appellate courts finding constitutional right to same-sex marriage,[321] the immediate effect was to increase to 25 the number of states allowing same-sex marriage.[322]

On 26 June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in Obergefell v. Hodges that states cannot prohibit the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, or to deny recognition of lawfully performed out-of-state marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This ruling invalidated same-sex marriage bans in any U.S. State and certain territories.[323][324] Prior to this ruling, same-sex marriages were legally performed in 37 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Guam as well as some Native American tribes.[325][326][327]

Uruguay's Chamber of Deputies passed a bill on 12 December 2012, to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples,[332] the Senate passed the bill on 2 April 2013, but with minor amendments. On 10 April 2013, the Chamber of Deputies passed the amended bill by a two-thirds majority (71–22), the president promulgated the law on 3 May 2013 and it took effect on 5 August.[333]

Armenia, a nation located in the South Caucasus, has historically had few protections or recognition in law of same-sex couples, this changed in July 2017, when the Ministry of Justice revealed that all marriages performed abroad are valid in Armenia, including marriages between people of the same sex.[334] That makes Armenia the second country of the former Soviet Union, after Estonia, to recognise same-sex marriages performed abroad.

On 22 October 2013, a bill was passed by the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) legalising same-sex marriage in the ACT. However, the High Court found that the change was never valid and an official reversal of the bill was announced on 12 December 2013, the High Court established that such a change to ACT legislation could not operate concurrently with the federal Marriage Act.[335]

As of September 2016, 21 same-sex marriage related bills have been introduced in the Parliament of Australia, none of which have passed and become law, the Coalition Government, narrowly re-elected at the July 2016 federal election, pledged to hold a plebiscite on the issue in early 2017, with the question being put to the Australian people, rather than being resolved by the parliament. The opposition Labor Party supports same-sex marriage but lobbies for a parliamentary conscience vote on same-sex marriage legislation, this resulted in the two parties coming to loggerheads and with the Labor party refusing to back a plebiscite, and Coalition refusing to allow a parliamentary conscience vote, thus resulting in a stalemate on the issue for the time being.[336] The Turnbull Government has since proposed to hold a non-binding, voluntary, postal plebiscite, to be concluded by mid-November 2017, though this proposal will be challenged in the High Court in September.[337][338][339]

On 20 November 2013, the Greens introduced a bill in Parliament that would legalise same-sex marriage,[340] it was sent to the Judiciary Committee on 17 December 2013.[341] The bill was supposed to be debated in Autumn 2014,[342] but was delayed by the ruling coalition.

In December 2015, the Vienna Administrative Court dismissed a case challenging the same-sex marriage ban, the plaintiffs appealed to the Constitutional Court.[343]

Michelle Bachelet, the President of Chile, who was elected to a second term in March 2014, has promised to work for the implementation of same-sex marriage and has a majority in both houses of Congress. Previously, she said, "Marriage equality, I believe we have to make it happen."[344] Polling shows majority support for same-sex marriage among Chileans.[345]

On 10 December 2014, a group of senators, from various parties, joined LGBT rights group MOVILH (Homosexual Movement of Integration and Liberation) in presenting a bill to allow same-sex marriage and adoption to Congress. MOVILH has been in talks with the Chilean Government to seek an amiable solution to the pending marriage lawsuit brought against the state before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. MOVILH has suggested that they would drop the case if Bachelet's Congress keeps their promise to legislate same-sex marriage.[346]

President Bachelet stated before a United Nations General Assembly panel in September 2016 that the Chilean Government would submit a same-sex marriage bill to Congress in the first half of 2017,[347] on 28 January 2015, the National Congress approved a bill recognizing civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples offering some of the rights of marriage. Bachelet signed the bill on 14 April, and it came into effect on 22 October.[348][349]

A poll carried out during September 2015 by the pollster Cadem Plaza Pública found that 60% of Chileans support same-sex marriage, whilst 36% are against it.[350]

The Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China explicitly defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. No other form of civil union is recognized, the attitude of the Chinese Government towards homosexuality is believed to be "three nos": "No approval; no disapproval; no promotion." The Ministry of Health officially removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 2001.

Li Yinhe, a sociologist and sexologist well known in the Chinese gay community, has tried to legalize same-sex marriage several times, including during the National People's Congress in 2000 and 2004 (Legalization for Same-Sex Marriage 《中国同性婚姻合法化》 in 2000 and the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 《中国同性婚姻提案》 in 2004). According to Chinese law, 35 delegates' signatures are needed to make an issue a bill to be discussed in the Congress, her efforts failed due to lack of support from the delegates. CPPCC National Committee spokesman Wu Jianmin when asked about Li Yinhe's proposal, said that same-sex marriage was still too "ahead of its time" for China, he argued that same-sex marriage was not recognized even in many Western countries, which are considered much more liberal in social issues than China.[351] This statement is understood as an implication that the Government may consider recognition of same-sex marriage in the long run, but not in the near future.

On 5 January 2016, a court in Changsha, southern Hunan Province, agreed to hear the lawsuit of 26-year-old Sun Wenlin filed in December 2015 against the Bureau of Civil Affairs of Furong District for its June 2015 refusal to let him marry his 36-year-old male partner, Hu Mingliang. On 13 April 2016, with hundreds of same-sex marriage supporters outside, the Changsha court ruled against Sun, who vowed to appeal, citing the importance of his case for LGBT progress in China.[352]

On 19 March 2015, a bill to legalize same-sex marriage was introduced to the Legislative Assembly by Deputy Ligia Elena Fallas Rodríguez from the Broad Front,[353] on 10 December 2015, the organization Front for Equal Rights (Frente Por los Derechos Igualitarios) and a group of deputies presented another bill.[354][355][356]

On 10 February 2016, the Constitutional Court of Costa Rica announced it would hear a case seeking to legalize same-sex marriage in Costa Rica and declare the country's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.[357]

In August 2016, a lawyer in El Salvador filed a lawsuit before the country's Supreme Court asking for the nullification of Article 11 of the Family Code which defines marriage as a heterosexual union. Labeling the law as discriminatory and explaining the lack of gendered terms used in Article 34 of the Constitution’s summary of a marriage, the lawsuit seeks to allow same-sex couples the right to wed.[358] A second lawsuit was filed in November 2016.

In 2016, a man filed a challenge against Georgia's same-sex marriage ban, arguing that while the Civil Code of Georgia states that marriage is explicitly between a man and a woman; the Constitution does not reference gender in its section on marriage.[361]

Israel's High Court of Justice ruled to recognize foreign same-sex marriages for the limited purpose of registration with the Administration of Border Crossings, Population and Immigration, however this is merely for statistical purposes and grants no state-level rights; Israel does not recognize civil marriages performed under its own jurisdiction. A bill was raised in the Knesset (parliament) to rescind the High Court's ruling, but the Knesset has not advanced the bill since December 2006. A bill to legalize same-sex and interfaith civil marriages was defeated in the Knesset, 39–11, on 16 May 2012.[364]

In November 2015, the National LGBT Taskforce of Israel petitioned the Supreme Court of Israel to allow same-sex marriage in the country, arguing that the refusal of the rabbinical court to recognise same-sex marriage should not prevent civil courts from performing same-sex marriages, the court did not immediately rule against the validity of the petition.[365]

A January 2013 Datamonitor poll found that 54.1% of respondents were in favour of same-sex marriage.[376] A May 2013 Ipsos poll found that 42% of Italians supported allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt children.[377] An October 2014 Demos poll found that 55% of respondents were in favour of same-sex marriage, with 42% against.[378]

On 25 February 2016, the Italian Senate passed a bill allowing civil unions with 173 senators in favour and 73 against, that same bill was approved by the Chamber of Deputies on 11 May 2016 with 372 deputies in favour and 51 against.[379] The President of Italy signed the bill into law on 22 May 2016 and the law went into effect on 5 June 2016.

Same-sex marriage is not legal in Japan. Article 24 of the Japanese Constitution states that "Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis."[380] Article 24 was created to establish the equality of both sexes in marriage, in opposition to the pre-war legal situation whereby the husband/father was legally defined as the head of household and marriage require permission from the male head of the family, the wording, however, inadvertently defined marriage as the union of man and woman.[citation needed]

51% of the Japanese population supports same-sex marriage, according to the latest poll carried out in 2015.[381]

On 27 May 2016, the Constitutional Court of Latvia overturned an administrative court decision which refused an application to register a same-sex marriage in the country. A Supreme Court press spokeswoman said that the court agrees with the administrative court that current regulations do not allow for same-sex marriages to be legally performed in Latvia. However, the matter should have been considered in a context not of marriage, but of registering familial partnership. Furthermore, it would have been impossible to conclude whether the applicants' rights were violated or not unless their claim is accepted and reviewed in a proper manner,[382] the Supreme Court will now decide whether the refusal was in breach of the Latvian Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

In November 2008, the Supreme Court of Nepal issued final judgment on matters related to LGBT rights, which included permitting same-sex couples to marry. Same-sex marriage and protection for sexual minorities were to be included in the new Nepalese Constitution required to be completed by 31 May 2012.[383][384] However, the Legislature was unable to agree on the Constitution before the deadline and was dissolved after the Supreme Court ruled that the term could not be extended.[385]

In October 2016, the Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare constituted a committee for the purpose of preparing a draft bill to legalize same-sex marriage.[386]

On 17 October 2016, a married same-sex couple filed an action of unconstitutionality seeking to recognise same-sex marriages performed abroad;[387] in early November, the case was admitted to the Supreme Court.[388] A challenge seeking to legalize same-sex marriage in Panama was introduced before the Supreme Court in March 2017.[389]

In a ruling published on 9 January 2017, the 7th Constitutional Court of Lima ordered the RENIEC to recognize and register the marriage of a same-sex couple who had previously wed in Mexico City.[390][391] RENIEC later appealed the ruling.[citation needed]

On 14 February 2017, a bill legalizing same-sex marriage was introduced in the Peruvian Congress.[392]

As of October 2016, a lawsuit initiated by a Romanian man seeking to have his marriage to an American man recognised is ongoing, the Constitutional Court is hearing the case and is consulting with the European Court of Justice on the matter, with a hearing in the case set for late March 2017.[395][needs update]

In December 2014, the eco-socialist United Left party introduced a bill amending expansion of the definition of marriage in the 1976 Marriage and Family Relations Act to include same-sex couples; in January 2015, the Government expressed no opposition to the bill. In February 2015, the bill was passed with 11 votes to 2; in March, the Assembly passed the bill in a 51–28 vote. On 10 March 2015, the National Council rejected a motion to require the Assembly to vote on the bill again, in a 14–23 vote. Opponents of the bill launched a petition for a referendum and managed to collect 40,000 signatures. Then Parliament voted to block the referendum with a clarification that it would be against the Slovenian Constitution to vote about matters concerning human rights. Finally the Constitutional Court ruled against the banning of the referendum (5–4) and the referendum was to be held on 20 December 2015.

In the referendum, 63.4% of the voters voted against the law, rendering Parliament's same-sex marriage act invalid.[396]

In July 2015, Kim Jho Kwang-soo and his partner, Kim Seung-Hwan, filed a lawsuit seeking legal status for their marriage after their marriage registration form was rejected by the local authorities in Seoul, on 25 May 2016, a South Korean district court ruled against the couple and argued that without clear legislation a same-sex union can not be recognized as a marriage.[397] The couple quickly filed an appeal against the district court ruling, their lawyer, Ryu Min-Hee, announced that two more same-sex couples had filed separate lawsuits in order to be allowed to wed.[398]

A same-sex marriage bill is pending in Parliament after the Green Liberal Party of Switzerland,[400] introduced a constitutional initiative to legalize same-sex marriage in December 2013, in opposotion to a Christian Democrat initiative banning same-sex marriage. The Committee for Legal Affairs of the National Council approved the Green Liberal initiative by 12-9 and 1 abstention on 20 February 2015,[401] on 1 September 2015, the upper house's Legal Affairs Committee voted 7 to 5 to proceed with the initiative.[402] The National Council's Legal Affairs Committee can now draft an act.

In a poll in June 2013 for ifop, 63% approved same-sex marriage,[403] after the National Council's Committee of Law Affairs' decision to approve same-sex marriage, two opinion polls released on 22 February 2015 showed a support of 54% (Léger Marketing for Blick[404]) and 71% (GfS Zürich for SonntagsZeitung[405]) allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt children. Additionally, in November 2016, voters in the canton of Zürich overwhelmingly rejected an initiative seeking to ban same-sex marriage in the cantonal Constitution, with 81% voting against.[406]

The Christian Democratic People's Party of Switzerland (CVP/PDC) started in 2011 with gathering signatures for a popular initiative entitled "For the couple and the family - No to the penalty of marriage". This initiative would change article 14 of the Swiss Federal Constitution and aimed to put equal fiscal rights and equal social security benefits between married couples and unmarried cohabiting couples. However, the text aimed to introduce as well in the Constitution for the first time ever the definition of marriage, which would be the sole "union between a man and a woman",[409] on 19 June 2015, the Parliament recommended that voters reject the initiative.[410] The Federal Council also recommended rejecting the initiative,[411][412] the Swiss people voted on the Christian Democrats' proposal in a referendum on 28 February 2016[413] and rejected it by 50.8% of the votes.[414]

On 22 December 2014, a proposed amendment to the Civil Code which would legalize same-sex marriage was due to go under review by the Judiciary Committee. If the amendment passes the committee stage it will then be voted on at the plenary session of the Legislative Yuan in 2015, the amendment, called the marriage equality amendment, would insert neutral terms into the Civil Code replacing ones that imply heterosexual marriage, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage. It would also allow same-sex couples to adopt children.

A poll carried out between August and October 2015 found that 71% of the Taiwanese population supports same-sex marriage.[416]Tsai Ing-wen, the President of Taiwan since May 2016, announced her support of same-sex marriage in November 2015.[417]

In October 2016, two same-sex marriage bills were introduced before the Legislative Yuan. Subsequently, protests have been staged by groups opposing and by groups supporting legalization.[418][419]

On 24 May 2017, the Constitutional Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry, and gave the government two years to amend the law to that effect. If the law is not amended after two years, same-sex couples will be able to register a valid marriage application in Taiwan.[1]

In Vietnam, currently only a marriage between a man and a woman is recognized. Vietnam's Ministry of Justice began seeking advice on legalizing same-sex marriage from other governmental and non-governmental organizations in April and May 2012, and planned to further discuss the issue at the National Assembly in Spring 2013.[421] However, in February 2013, the Ministry of Justice requested that the National Assembly avoid action until 2014,[422] at a hearing to discuss marriage law reforms in April 2013, deputy minister of health Nguyen Viet Tien proposed that same-sex marriage be made legal immediately.[423]

The Vietnamese Government abolished an administrative fine imposed on same-sex weddings in 2013,[424] the policy was enacted on 11 November 2013. The 100,000–500,000 VND ($24USD) fine will be abolished, although same-sex marriages are not permitted in Vietnam, the policy will decriminalize the relationship, habitual privileges such as household registry, property, child raising, and co-habitual partnerships are recognized.[425]

In June 2013, the National Assembly began formal debate on a proposal to establish legal recognition for same-sex marriage,[426] on 24 September 2013, the Government issued the decree abolishing the fines on same-sex marriages. The decree took effect on 11 November 2013.[427][428][429]

On 27 May 2014, the National Assembly's Committee for Social Affairs removed the provision giving legal status and some rights to cohabiting same-sex couples from the Government's bill to amend the Law on Marriage and Family,[430][431] the bill was approved by the National Assembly on 19 June 2014.[432][433]

On 1 January 2015, the 2014 Law on Marriage and Family officially went into effect. It states that while Vietnam allows same-sex weddings, it will not offer legal recognition or protection to unions between people of the same sex.[434]

The terms of employment of the staff of international organizations (not commercial) in most cases are not governed by the laws of the country where their offices are located. Agreements with the host country safeguard these organizations' impartiality.

Despite their relative independence, few organizations recognize same-sex partnerships without condition, the agencies of the United Nations recognize same-sex marriages if and only if the country of citizenship of the employees in question recognizes the marriage.[435] In some cases, these organizations do offer a limited selection of the benefits normally provided to mixed-sex married couples to de facto partners or domestic partners of their staff, but even individuals who have entered into a mixed-sex civil union in their home country are not guaranteed full recognition of this union in all organizations. However, the World Bank does recognize domestic partners.[436]

Female same-sex marriage is practiced among the Gikuyu, Nandi, Kamba, Kipsigis, and to a lesser extent neighboring peoples. Approximately 5–10% of women are in such marriages. However, this is not seen as homosexual, but is instead a way for families without sons to keep their inheritance within the family,[446] the laws criminalizing homosexuality are generally specific to men, though in 2010 the prime minister called for women to be arrested as well.[citation needed]

In Nigeria, homosexual activity between men, but not between women, is illegal; in 2006, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo introduced legislation that prohibits same-sex marriages and criminalizes anyone who "performs, witnesses, aids or abets" such ceremonies.[447]

Among the Igbo people and probably other peoples in the south of the country, there are circumstances where a marriage between women is considered appropriate, such as when a woman has no child and her husband dies, and she takes a wife to perpetuate her inheritance and family lineage.[448]

While few societies have recognized same-sex unions as marriages, the historical and anthropological record reveals a large range of attitudes towards same-sex unions ranging from praise, through full acceptance and integration, sympathetic toleration, indifference, prohibition and discrimination, to persecution and physical annihilation. Opponents of same-sex marriages have argued that same-sex marriage, while doing good for the couples that participate in them and the children they are raising,[449] undermines a right of children to be raised by their biological mother and father,[450] some supporters of same-sex marriages take the view that the government should have no role in regulating personal relationships,[451] while others argue that same-sex marriages would provide social benefits to same-sex couples.[452] The debate regarding same-sex marriages includes debate based upon social viewpoints as well as debate based on majority rules, religious convictions, economic arguments, health-related concerns, and a variety of other issues.[citation needed]

Scientific literature indicates that parents' financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union (either a mixed-sex or same-sex union), as a result, professional scientific associations have argued for same-sex marriage to be legally recognized as it will be beneficial to the children of same-sex parents or carers.[13][14][15][453][454]

Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.[14][454][455][456] According to scientific literature reviews, there is no evidence to the contrary.[52][457][458][459]

All states that allow same-sex marriage also allow the joint adoption of children by people of the same sex, with the exceptions of Guerrero, Jalisco, Nayarit and Quintana Roo in Mexico; in addition, Andorra, Austria and Israel as well as several subnational jurisdictions which do not recognize same-sex marriage nonetheless permit joint adoption by unmarried same-sex couples: the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia in Australia, Veracruz in Mexico as well as Northern Ireland and Jersey in the United Kingdom. Some additional states allow stepchild adoption by those who are in a same-sex relationship but are unmarried: Croatia, Estonia, Italy (on a case-by-case basis), Slovenia and Switzerland.[citation needed]

More than 16,000 same-sex couples are raising an estimated 22,000 adopted children in the United States.[460] Same-sex couples are raising 4% of all adopted children in the United States.[461]

A gay or bisexual man has the option of surrogacy, the process in which a woman bears a child for another person through artificial insemination or carries another woman's surgically implanted fertilized egg to birth. A lesbian or bisexual woman has the option of artificial insemination.[462][463]

When sex is defined legally, it may be defined by any one of several criteria: the XY sex-determination system, the type of gonads, the type of external sexual features, or the person's social identification.[citation needed] Consequently, both transgender and intersex individuals may be legally categorized into confusing gray areas, and could be prohibited from marrying partners of the "opposite" sex or permitted to marry partners of the "same" sex due to legal distinctions.[citation needed] This could result in long-term marriages, as well as recent same-sex marriages, being overturned.[citation needed]

The problems of defining gender by the existence/non-existence of gonads or certain sexual features is complicated by the existence of surgical methods to alter these features.[citation needed] Estimates run as high as one percent of live births exhibiting some degree of sexual ambiguity,[449][464] and between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births being ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including sometimes involuntary surgery to address their sexual ambiguity.[465]

In any legal jurisdiction where marriages are defined without distinction of a requirement of a male and female, these complications do not occur; in addition, some legal jurisdictions recognize a legal and official change of gender, which would allow a transgender male or female to be legally married in accordance with an adopted gender identity.[466]

In the United Kingdom, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 allows a person who has lived in their chosen gender for at least two years to receive a gender recognition certificate officially recognizing their new gender, because in the United Kingdom marriages were until recently only for mixed-sex couples and civil partnerships are only for same-sex couples, a person must dissolve his/her civil partnership before obtaining a gender recognition certificate, and the same was formerly true for marriages in England and Wales, and still is in other territories. Such people are then free to enter or re-enter civil partnerships or marriages in accordance with their newly recognized gender identity; in Austria, a similar provision requiring transsexual people to divorce before having their legal sex marker corrected was found to be unconstitutional in 2006.[467]

In Quebec, prior to the legalization of same-sex marriage, only unmarried people could apply for legal change of gender, with the advent of same-sex marriage, this restriction was dropped. A similar provision including sterilization also existed in Sweden, but was phased out in 2013.[citation needed]

In the United States, transgender and intersex marriages typically run into similar complications.[citation needed] As definitions and enforcement of marriage are defined by the states, these complications vary from state to state,[468] as some of them prohibit legal changes of gender.[citation needed]

In the United States of America before the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, couples in same-sex marriages could only obtain a divorce in jurisdictions that recognized same-sex marriages, with some exceptions.[469]

There are differing positions regarding the manner in which same-sex marriage has been introduced into democratic jurisdictions. A "majority rules" position holds that same-sex marriage is valid, or void and illegal, based upon whether it has been accepted by a simple majority of voters or of their elected representatives.[470]

In contrast, a civil rights view holds that the institution can be validly created through the ruling of an impartial judiciary carefully examining the questioning and finding that the right to marry regardless of the gender of the participants is guaranteed under the civil rights laws of the jurisdiction.[471]

Religion plays a prominent role in discourse about same-sex marriage,[citation needed] and several religious organizations and churches have expressed a range of official positions. Religious views on same-sex marriage are closely related to religious views on homosexuality.[citation needed] While the majority of world religions stand in opposition, the number of denominations accepting and conducting same-sex marriages has increased in the 2000s and 2010s.[citation needed]

The vast majority of traditional Muslim scholars believe Shariah law opposes same-sex marriage and condemns same-sex sex, this is also the dominant view in modern Muslim societies, though, historically and culturally, same-sex sex often has been and is engaged in or celebrated. Some Muslims in the West now argue that homosexuality is allowed by Shariah law.[483] Most Orthodox Jewish leaders oppose same-sex marriage, while Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist Jewish rabbinical groups affirm its validity,[484] although Buddhism is considered to be ambivalent on the subject as a whole,[485][not in citation given] particular Buddhists have supported marriage equality,[486][487][488] as do a variety of other religious traditions.[489]

One source of controversy is whether same-sex marriage affects freedom of religion.[490][491][492][493][494] Some religious organizations may refuse to provide employment, public accommodations, adoption services, and other benefits to same-sex couples,[495] some jurisdictions include religion accommodation provisions in marriage equality laws.[496]

Following the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges in June 2015, a county clerk in Kentucky, Kim Davis, who objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds, was named as defendant in six lawsuits after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some prominent Americans, including politician Ted Cruz, expressed support for her.[497]

^Ring, Trudy (20 December 2012). "Newt Gingrich: Marriage Equality Inevitable, OK". The Advocate. Los Angeles. He [Newt Gingrich] noted to HuffPo that he not only has a lesbian half-sister, LGBT rights activist Candace Gingrich, but has gay friends who've gotten married in Iowa, where their unions are legal. Public opinion has shifted in favor of marriage equality, he said, and the Republican Party could end up on the wrong side of history if it continues to go against the tide.

^ abNero missed her so greatly that, on learning of a woman who resembled her, he sent for her and kept her; but later he caused a boy of the freedmen, whom he used to call Sporus, ... "he formally "married" Sporus, and assigned the boy a regular dowry according to contract;" q.v., Suetonius Nero 28; Dio Cassius Epitome 62.28

^Corbett, The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford, 1969), pp. 24–28; Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford, 1991), pp. 43–49.; "Marriages where the partners had conubium were marriages valid in Roman law (iusta matrimonia)" [Treggiari, p. 49]. Compare Ulpian (Tituli Ulpiani) 5.3–5: "Conubium is the capacity to marry a wife in Roman law. Roman citizens have conubium with Roman citizens, but with Latins and foreigners only if the privilege was granted. There is no conubium with slaves"; compare also Gaius (Institutionum 1:55–56, 67, 76–80).

^Wall, Allan. "Mexican Supreme Court Advances Gay Marriage Agenda". News With Views. Retrieved 9 February 2012. The ruling [on] 5 August 2010, upheld the Mexico City same-sex marriage law as being constitutional. (The vote on that ruling was 8 to 2). Five days late[r]...the Supreme Court...decreed that same-sex marriages performed in Mexico City are valid marriages throughout all of Mexico.

^Dale Carpenter is a prominent spokesman for this view. For a better understanding of this view, see Carpenter's writings at "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 17 November 2006. Retrieved 31 October 2006.

1.
Gay village
–
A gay village is a geographical area with generally recognized boundaries, inhabited or frequented by a large number of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Gay villages often contain a number of gay-oriented establishments, such as gay bars and pubs, nightclubs, bathhouses, restaurants, such areas may represent a LGBTQ-friendly oasis in an otherwise hostile city, or may simply have a high concentration of gay residents and businesses. However, todays manifestations of queer ghettos bear little resemblance to those of the 1970s, the term ghetto originally referred to those places in European cities where Jews were required to live according to local law. These areas, however, have higher concentrations of LGBT residents, some cities like Austin, Texas did not develop a defined gay village despite the city of Austin being home to many LGBT people with developed LGBT-friendly businesses and a counterculture present. The neighbourhood of Schöneberg in Berlin, close to Nollendorfplatz, is the first gay village in the world, from the 1920s. In New York, for example, the congregation of gay men had not been illegal since 1965, however, the Stonewall Rebellion managed to change not only the profile of the gay community but the dynamic within the community itself. This transition from the bars to the streets, from nightlife to daytime, national Monument dedicated to the LGBTQ-rights movement. Gay villages can vary widely from city to city and country to country, furthermore, some large cities also develop satellite gay villages that are essentially overflow areas. The professors also noted that the presence of gay men in the real estate industry of San Francisco was a major factor facilitating the urban renaissance of the city in the 1970s. However, the gentrification of gay villages may serve to reinforce stereotypes of gays, by pushing out gay people who do not conform to the prevailing gay, white, affluent. Such people are forced out of the village due to rising rents or constant harassment at the hands of an increased policing presence. Especially in San Franciscos Polk Gulch neighborhood, gentrification seems to have had this result, Gay men and women have a reputation for driving the revitalization of previously run-down enclaves. Making these neighborhoods more desirable places to live, businesses and other classes of people move to the area and, accordingly, Richard Florida, an influential American academic, claims that their mere presence lures investors and jobs, particularly of the high-technology kind. They are, he says, the canaries of the creative economy, Cities that have gay villages and are more tolerant towards gays, generally tend to have stronger, more robust, and creative economies, as compared to cities that are less tolerant towards gays. Florida says that cities as such have a creative class. The gentrification of once rundown inner-city areas, coupled with the staging of pride parades in these areas, has resulted in the visibility of gay communities. The growing recognition of the value of the gay community is not only associated with their wealth but also with the role that lesbians. Provincetown, MA was ranked by the US Census Bureau as the gayest city in America, also Provincetown, or Ptown, was voted Best Resort Town in 2011 by Gaycities. com

2.
Biphobia
–
Biphobia is aversion toward bisexuality and toward bisexual people as a social group or as individuals. It can take the form of denial that bisexuality is a sexual orientation. People of any orientation can experience or perpetuate biphobia. Biphobia is a portmanteau word patterned on the term homophobia and it derives from the English neo-classical prefix bi- from bisexual and the root -phobia found in homophobia. Along with transphobia and homophobia, it is one of a family of terms used to describe intolerance, the adjectival form biphobic describes things or qualities related to biphobia, and the less-common noun biphobe is a label for people thought to harbor biphobia. Biphobia need not be a phobia as defined in clinical psychology and its meaning and use typically parallel those of xenophobia. Biphobia can deny that bisexuality is real, asserting that people who identify as bisexual are not genuinely bisexual, one form of this denial is based on the heterosexist view that heterosexuality is the only true or natural sexual orientation. Thus anything that deviates from that is either a psychological pathology or an example of anti-social behavior. In these instances, homophobia and biphobia are largely the same, another form of denial stems from binary views of sexuality, that people are assumed monosexual, i. e. exclusively homosexual or heterosexual. In that model, bisexuals are presumed to be either closeted lesbian/gay pe